Re: Bad Signatures

[Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>]

geoff wrote:

| I am not convinced. For a mailing list it makes sense for all members
| to be aware of message integrity problems. Not all cypherpunks have

	Why?  I don't care that your message lacked a signature, I
neither know who you are, or have any history of interactions with
you.

| your lisp package or Pronto Secure which make signature verification of
| the 10-20 pgp signed messages per day on the list a non trivial task.

	I'll claim that anyone on the list who wants to check
signatures could do so, and that having a 'signature bot' which would
need to sign its opinions adds nothing to message security, except a
single point for comprimise.

| I also like the idea that cpunks provides as a byproduct a platform for
| developers to test and debug their security products. We really should

	I see; you're offering your web site for the complete
archives?

Adam
-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume